Yeah I'd say 14 straight years of 10 win/Top 4 seasons coupled with more MNCs, bowl wins, and major bowl wins, along with being the winningest coach ever gives Bowden a substantial edge of a cowardly ***** like Carroll.

Yeah I'd say 14 straight years of 10 win/Top 4 seasons coupled with more MNCs, bowl wins, and major bowl wins, along with being the winningest coach ever gives Bowden a substantial edge of a cowardly ***** like Carroll.

Pete won 2 national championships with USC. The longer you take to realize the longer you stand to face the reality of the argument at hand.

Yeah I'd say 14 straight years of 10 win/Top 4 seasons coupled with more MNCs, bowl wins, and major bowl wins, along with being the winningest coach ever gives Bowden a substantial edge of a cowardly ***** like Carroll.

Maybe you should know the ******* story before you speak. Pete isn't a coward, he would have stayed if it was up to him. He was asked to leave by Garrett.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

Does FSU rank 2 or 3 in Florida for prestigious history in college football?

Probably 3rd.

Where does USC ran for prestigious history in all of college football?

1, 2, or 3?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

My point was that a bad USC team was able to out recruit a great A&M team.

According to Rivals and Scout Texas A&M had a higher ranked recruiting class than USC. I wouldn't say that a team out recruited another team because they signed more five star recruits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Most of the recruits nowadays got their first impressions of college football when Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush were dominating the nation, with ESPN and the rest of the media dubbing USC a dynasty. That's the impression USC has with a lot of kids, even now we're only a few years removed from USC dominance. Recruits naturally have a positive impression of USC regardless of the coach. A&M on the other hand is really only going to resonate with recruits in relation to Kevin Sumlin's success. You aren't going to have that many recruits with fond memories of when A&M was dominating the competition, outside of last season. A lot of kids wanted to play at USC because of Lane Kiffin, but many also wanted to play for USC in general. Certainly some players feel the same way about A&M, but clearly its not going to be as noticeable as the attraction towards USC.

The brand and nostalgia that recruits have for the Carroll USC days is just like the live in LA factor, it doesn't work on everybody and it's not a big factor in a recruit's decision. You're highly overrating the factor of USC's recent success. Texas A&M's lack of success or elite teams didn't hurt Sumlin when he got to A&M. Kids go to a school where they feel comfortable with a coach, that's why kids choose to play for Sumlin or Kiffin. I would feel confident saying that the five stars that Kiffin brought in would not have gone there if he hadn't recruited them. They wouldn't have gone there because it was SC. They would've gone to whatever other school where they had a great relationship with the coach and felt comfortable. Of course if Sumlin goes to SC he'll recruit well there, but it's because he's Kevin Sumlin. He'll recruit just as well at A&M and it will probably be easier because he's got better facilities and more money to spend on recruiting than he'd have at SC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

That being said, many recruits certainly do care about location, and as long as proximity's not a factor, USC's always going to win that battle.

Once again, I think you're highly overrating the location factor. Sumlin would recruit just as well at A&M as he would at SC. It's not like he's having a hard time convincing kids right now to come to College Station.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

A lot of these are factors that don't actually matter on the field. So lets assume that indeed A&M will always be able to outspend USC. So? What exactly are they going to spend that money on? They already have a recently built athletic facility, other than some interior upgrades there's not that much room for expenditure. They have a Kyle Field expansion in the pipelines, but it's already a pretty impressive stadium, the seating is more so to accommodate fans than it is to attract new recruits.

More fans means more money which helps their recruiting budget and football budget increase and can improve the University in a variety of ways. I'd rather be at the school that has more money to spend than the school that is going to have a harder time fundraising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

And regardless, your theory that A&M has more money than USC is a myth; USC launched a six billion dollar fund raising campaign in 2011. Since then, they've collected $2.81B. Comparatively, A&M has raised under $1B.

Not a myth. Tops in the country for a single year as I said. The Six Billion dollar campaign represents a longterm goal for USC, one that people have serious doubts about. A&M has a much easier time raising money than SC because of its size and the conference that they are in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Pat Haden being a clown has no bearing on the situation, no recruit or player cares about who the AD is, and Haden's problems as an administrator stem from making wrong hires and being reluctant to fire them, which doesn't affect Sumlin, at certainly not negatively.

It absolutely has a bearing on the situation. I'd rather work in a stable athletic department and with an AD who I'm already on the same page as rather than an AD who comes off as a clown and has a bad reputation. Recruits or players don't care about who the AD is, but the head coach certainly does. And Haden's problem that you cite are the exact reason I wouldn't want to work for him. I don't want to go work for an AD who I think is on the hot seat. For a coach one of the worst feelings has got to be the AD who hired you getting fired. I don't want to work in instability and I can't imagine Sumlin would either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Regarding the recruiting base, as I said, USC is a national brand. A&M is still limited mostly to the general area you described, but USC is far from limited to just California. USC can very reasonably pluck a recruit from A&M's backyard, the same can't be said for the Aggies.

Why does it matter where you recruit from? Texas, LSU, Florida, all won national championships recruiting in their backyard. Although, Sumlin is showing the ability to bring kids from out of his region into Texas A&M. He convinced the number one QB in the country, who is from Arizona (Pac 12 country), to come to A&M. He's begun convincing kids from out of A&M's recruiting zone to come to College Station. As for not being able to take kids out of SC's backyard, Idisagree. He'll only get better at it, and why go there if you don't have to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

The simple fact is that A&M's recent success on-the-field, in recruiting and in fundraising can be laid much more at Sumlin's feet than some quality inherent to the school itself. Which means he can pretty much bring all those attributes with him, and then reap the additional benefits of the superior football program that USC possesses. USC is considered an elite football program regardless of the coach, A&M is not.

The recent success of A&M's fundraising is in large part due not to Sumlin but to the schools admission to the SEC and the massive alumni base that it has. He can't bring the SEC with him or A&M's big money. As for USC being an elite job regardless of the coach and A&M not being one, it all depends on the state of the program. When Pete Carroll took over for Paul Hackett I would not have considered that job an elite one. If RC Slocum and John Robinson both stepped down in the 1990s while Slocum was enjoying his success at A&M and Robinson was struggling the A&M job would've been a better job than the SC job. Nothing is constant in college football, it all depends on the sate of the program, and right now the state of the program at A&M is better than at SC. It comes down to this, Sumlin can recruit just as well at A&M as he can at SC in terms of class rankings, but he's got more money, better facilities, and a better AD at A&M.

According to Rivals and Scout Texas A&M had a higher ranked recruiting class than USC. I wouldn't say that a team out recruited another team because they signed more five star recruits.

Because USC could only brought in 13 recruits due to the scholarship limits which will end in a year. If you look at the classes themselves, its clear USC out recruited A&M. USC brought in less players, but they brought in superior ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcn92

The brand and nostalgia that recruits have for the Carroll USC days is just like the live in LA factor, it doesn't work on everybody and it's not a big factor in a recruit's decision. You're highly overrating the factor of USC's recent success. Texas A&M's lack of success or elite teams didn't hurt Sumlin when he got to A&M. Kids go to a school where they feel comfortable with a coach, that's why kids choose to play for Sumlin or Kiffin. I would feel confident saying that the five stars that Kiffin brought in would not have gone there if he hadn't recruited them. They wouldn't have gone there because it was SC. They would've gone to whatever other school where they had a great relationship with the coach and felt comfortable. Of course if Sumlin goes to SC he'll recruit well there, but it's because he's Kevin Sumlin. He'll recruit just as well at A&M and it will probably be easier because he's got better facilities and more money to spend on recruiting than he'd have at SC.

Once again, I think you're highly overrating the location factor. Sumlin would recruit just as well at A&M as he would at SC. It's not like he's having a hard time convincing kids right now to come to College Station.

Again, you don't need to state the obvious, everyone is aware there isn't a single pitch that works on all recruits. But that doesn't change the fact that locale and program prestige and tradition play heavily on many recruits minds. Some players don't care where they play, but many do. Some players don't care about their team's history, but many do. And USC has a very clear advantage in both areas. There are actually two prime examples in their most recent class; five-star recruits Max Browne and Leon McQuay. Browne said he chose USC partly because all quarterbacks on the west coast dream of being the Trojans quarterback. McQuay said he chose USC partly because he wanted to major in music production, where LA's appeal is obvious. Kevin Sumlin will able to recruit on his own name at USC, but he'd also be able to recruit using attributes inherent and exclusive to USC, more so than at A&M.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcn92

More fans means more money which helps their recruiting budget and football budget increase and can improve the University in a variety of ways. I'd rather be at the school that has more money to spend than the school that is going to have a harder time fundraising.

Not a myth. Tops in the country for a single year as I said. The Six Billion dollar campaign represents a longterm goal for USC, one that people have serious doubts about. A&M has a much easier time raising money than SC because of its size and the conference that they are in.

Why does it matter where you recruit from? Texas, LSU, Florida, all won national championships recruiting in their backyard. Although, Sumlin is showing the ability to bring kids from out of his region into Texas A&M. He convinced the number one QB in the country, who is from Arizona (Pac 12 country), to come to A&M. He's begun convincing kids from out of A&M's recruiting zone to come to College Station. As for not being able to take kids out of SC's backyard, Idisagree. He'll only get better at it, and why go there if you don't have to.

The recent success of A&M's fundraising is in large part due not to Sumlin but to the schools admission to the SEC and the massive alumni base that it has. He can't bring the SEC with him or A&M's big money. As for USC being an elite job regardless of the coach and A&M not being one, it all depends on the state of the program. When Pete Carroll took over for Paul Hackett I would not have considered that job an elite one. If RC Slocum and John Robinson both stepped down in the 1990s while Slocum was enjoying his success at A&M and Robinson was struggling the A&M job would've been a better job than the SC job. Nothing is constant in college football, it all depends on the sate of the program, and right now the state of the program at A&M is better than at SC. It comes down to this, Sumlin can recruit just as well at A&M as he can at SC in terms of class rankings, but he's got more money, better facilities, and a better AD at A&M.

Please stop perpetuating this money myth. It's pure and utter fantasy/fabrication. That single year record you're referring to? That's for the state of Texas. If you simply did the basic math, you'd realize that the only way USC could possibly raise $2.8B over two years would be to raise at least nearly twice as much as that $740M number you seem so proud of during one of the years. The simple fact is that during the two years Kevin Sumlin has been at A&M, USC has raised almost three times as much money. A&M clearly does not have more money, please stop pretending that they do. It's not even a matter of opinion, it's an undeniable fact.

Please stop perpetuating this money myth. It's pure and utter fantasy/fabrication. That single year record you're referring to? That's for the state of Texas. If you simply did the basic math, you'd realize that the only way USC could possibly raise $2.8B over two years would be to raise at least nearly twice as much as that $740M number you seem so proud of during one of the years. The simple fact is that during the two years Kevin Sumlin has been at A&M, USC has raised almost three times as much money. A&M clearly does not have more money, please stop pretending that they do. It's not even a matter of opinion, it's an undeniable fact.

You should stop pretending. It's easy to see. A&M is in a bigger state and has more alumni so they are able to solicit donations from a bigger group than SC ever could. The record I am referring to is a national record, it dwarfs Wisconsin's 595 million raised in 2005. It's not a Texas record. It's an undeniable fact that a public school with more alumni and more students that's bigger than a private school has more money. Texas A&M's endowment if twice the size of USC's. Why? Because of all the things I just said. It's silly to think that USC has more money than A&M. Big time state schools will always have more money to play with and an easier time raising it than smaller private schools, with the possible exception of Notre Dame. It's pretty clear, this is not a fantasy or fabrication.

Also if money is so easy for USC to come by why did they just finish the McKay Center last year? A&M had a building like that in 03 when they weren't nearly as good as SC, and SC just got their facility, probably close to ten years after they should've gotten it. Just shows A&M had money even when they were down and USC was better, it's not new.

You should stop pretending. It's easy to see. A&M is in a bigger state and has more alumni so they are able to solicit donations from a bigger group than SC ever could. The record I am referring to is a national record, it dwarfs Wisconsin's 595 million raised in 2005. It's not a Texas record. It's an undeniable fact that a public school with more alumni and more students that's bigger than a private school has more money. Texas A&M's endowment if twice the size of USC's. Why? Because of all the things I just said. It's silly to think that USC has more money than A&M. Big time state schools will always have more money to play with and an easier time raising it than smaller private schools, with the possible exception of Notre Dame. It's pretty clear, this is not a fantasy or fabrication.

I'm guessing you didn't fully read your own sources, because they undermine your very argument. To begin, in just the second paragraph of The Eagle article, it clearly states A&M simply broke a state record;

Quote:

The amount is nearly $300 million higher than A&M's previous top year, and officials boast it is the highest amount ever raised by a Texas university.

You then try to say that the previous record is $595M raised by Wisconsin in 2005, which A&M's $740M would appear to smash, another indication you either skimmed the article, or are being intentional deceitful. This paragraph completely changes your version of events;

Quote:

A&M's fundraising figures are hard to compare to national standards. The Council for Aid in Education conducts a yearly survey that polls participating universities. The survey, as opposed to A&M's figures, only counts cash on hand, and excludes pledged amounts. The comparable fiscal year 2013 national figures won't be released until February, survey director Ann Kaplan said.

You can't possibly compare A&M's $740M to Wisconsin's $595M. Wisconsin's numbers are based on what was actually given, not simply pledged as in A&M's case, and we won't know the amount actually given to A&M until next year. So your claim that they raised more is complete fabrication, because you won't have any idea of that until next year.

You then move onto claim that it's an undeniable fact that bigger, public schools automatically win fundraising battles. Care to explain how that small, private school Stanford was the first school to raise over $1B in one fiscal year? Care to explain how that small, private school Stanford has been the top collegiate fundraiser eight years in a row? Care to explain how out of the top ten fundraising schools, only one was a public school? Your theory that public schools have often have larger alumni bases they must therefore have more money holds absolutely no water.

USC's received $2.81B in donations and pledges these past two years. A&M's received less than $1B in donations and pledges these past two years. One really good year doesn't make A&M the richer school, as basically all numbers illustrate. USC might have a smaller alumni base, but it clearly has a wealthier, more generous alumni base. One can only assume that you're an extreme A&M homer if you're going to continue to argue against facts as you currently are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcn92

Also if money is so easy for USC to come by why did they just finish the McKay Center last year? A&M had a building like that in 03 when they weren't nearly as good as SC, and SC just got their facility, probably close to ten years after they should've gotten it. Just shows A&M had money even when they were down and USC was better, it's not new.

Because schools have different priorities and different building schedules, maybe? Not every school feels obliged to build a new facility the moment someone else builds one.

I'm guessing you didn't fully read your own sources, because they undermine your very argument. To begin, in just the second paragraph of The Eagle article, it clearly states A&M simply broke a state record;

Yes it says it is a state record however later in the article it refers to the national record which in a previous source that I listed in this thread states is more than the University of Wisconsin's record.

Quote:

Texas A&M University raised $740 million last year according to DallasNews.com. The amount breaks the record set by Wisconsin in 2005 ($595 million) and could help the school's athletic department surpass Texas as the richest in college sports.

You then move onto claim that it's an undeniable fact that bigger, public schools automatically win fundraising battles. Care to explain how that small, private school Stanford was the first school to raise over $1B in one fiscal year? Care to explain how that small, private school Stanford has been the top collegiate fundraiser eight years in a row? Care to explain how out of the top ten fundraising schools, only one was a public school?

Out of those private school's listed, how many of them field football teams? This is in regards to athletics not academics so those Ivies that of course have a ton of money wouldn't apply to this conversation. Yes Stanford raises a lot of money because of its location in Silicon Valley and because of the money in the area, however after Stanford there aren't that many schools on that list that field FBS football teams. Stanford did it because it's in the wealthiest area in the country and 70% of the schools in that top ten don't even field football teams. And Texas A&M's record from this past year would still be second on that list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Your theory that public schools have often have larger alumni bases they must therefore have more money holds absolutely no water.

Of the 25 schools that made the most money in college football only two of them were private schools. A&M made 44.2 million dollars off of college football, USC made less than that with 34.5 million dollars. The other private school is Notre Dame which as I said is an exception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

USC's received $2.81B in donations and pledges these past two years. A&M's received less than $1B in donations and pledges these past two years. One really good year doesn't make A&M the richer school, as basically all numbers illustrate.

You can't compare the six year effort of USC to raise 6 billion dollars to A&M's annual fundraising efforts, they are two completely different types of fundraising. You're comparing apples and oranges. USC's efforts to raise 6 billion dollars is what's called a capital campaign, a fundraising effort that takes place over a long period of time and people generally give more to that type of campaign then to an annual fund. An annual fund is what I'm referring to when it comes to Texas A&M's 740 million dollars. As your top ten points out USC's annual fund from the past year was less than that at below 500 million dollars.

Also of that 2.1B that you keep on referring to being raised over two years, technically it was over three years because they raised a billion dollars of it in the quiet phase of the capital campaign, the phase of the campaign where they are fundraising before it's announced. Also USC will be putting half of that 6 billion dollars they hope to collect by 2018 into their endowment, which is currently less than A&M's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Because schools have different priorities and different building schedules, maybe? Not every school feels obliged to build a new facility the moment someone else builds one.

That's a weak excuse. USC deserved that building when Carroll was there and they wouldn't wait ten years to do it just because they didn't feel compelled to give their team the building they deserved. No sane AD would go so long with a facility that clearly did not represent the quality of his team just because he didn't feel the need for a new one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigaro

USC might have a smaller alumni base, but it clearly has a wealthier, more generous alumni base. One can only assume that you're an extreme A&M homer if you're going to continue to argue against facts as you currently are.

I'm not an A&M homer, I actually prefer SC. It's just that I know that state schools generally have an easier time securing funding for football related projects and generating revenue through football than small private schools, with the exception of Note Dame and as you have shown Stanford because of there location in Silicon Valley. Another example is the University of Miami. They literally just got the football facility that they deserved. I like how you chose to ignore my comment about how Texas A&M's endowment is twice the size of USC's. 7.6B>3.5B

Here's a list of school's expenses, revenue, and profit for Athletics from 2011 (Before Sumlin arrived). You've gotta go 11 school's before you get to a private school.

Is USC going to wait until after the season / NFL season? I can't see Del Rio leaving that team until after the playoffs and heck maybe Orgeron does well enough to keep the job. It's silly to have odds this soon.

Also lol Mass, acting like USCs titles don't count. Come on man. I know you're one of the best homers on this site but you gotta know your limitations.

Be jealous of our Stanford money raisin'! They ran 3 crew 24 hours to get our stadium done in one offseason.

********. The university officially doesn't claim it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. They won those game. Reggie Bush won a heisman. Vacated or not they happened. USC was on top of the college football world and only the current Alabama run can rival it recently.

USC's run was not as good as FSU's run of 14 years. Has anyone ever come close to that? Hell, even as good as Alabams has been recently they've only had 10 wins and finished in the top five three of five years.

What makes it even more impressive is Bowden did it without a conference championship game and without a 12th regular season game. So FSU did what thesr "better" USC and Alabama runs couldn't even come close to doing with two more games. But yeah SC's run was better.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

Bortlezzzzzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomach

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

Texas and VT came close on the consecutive 10 win seasons but had 10-4 campaigns. USC (if we count 04 & 05) had 7 straight Top 4 seasons, only half of FSU's run. No one is going to match that record and barring something unforeseen FSU will break both Nebraska's consecutive bowl game streak and Michigan's consecutive winning season streak in 2017.

********. The university officially doesn't claim it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. They won those game. Reggie Bush won a heisman. Vacated or not they happened. USC was on top of the college football world and only the current Alabama run can rival it recently.

I agreed with everything until the final part. USC's run was good - but I wouldn't put it as an elite run or even close to Alabama right now or FSU in the 90's.

__________________Sig by the King BK

Fear the Spear - Winston Era has begun....

Quote:

"I wasn't going to lose to Miami, no matter what," Freeman said. "It means a lot to go out there and beat them. Every time I get a chance, I want to destroy them."

I agreed with everything until the final part. USC's run was good - but I wouldn't put it as an elite run or even close to Alabama right now or FSU in the 90's.

How was it not Elite?

Please enlighten me.

2001 - 6-6 Lost in Las Vegas Bowl in Carroll's first year.
2002 - 11-2 Won the Orange Bowl and finished 4th in the nation
2003 - 12-1 Wins the Rose Bowl and the AP title (Should have played LSU)
2004 - 13-0 Wins the National Title in dominating fashion
2005 - 12-1 Loses to Texas in the best national title game ever
2006 - 11-2 Win the Rose Bowl - Finished 4th in the country
2007 - 11-2 Win the Rose Bowl - Was a UCLA loss away from smacking OSU in the title
2008 - 12-1 Win the Rose Bowl (One of the best defenses in history) - Finished 2nd
2009 - 9-4 - Win the Emrald Bowl

5 BCS bowl game wins, 1.5 National titles and a career 83-19 record. If that is not elite, I don't know what is.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

1980 is completely arbitrary date that has no meaning whatsoever, except that it fits your argument. Why can we count what happened in 1993 but not 1978?

It's Hilarious. At first I thought, he was trolling and now it just seems he doesn't know better.

And Niel89:

I would hope USC would wait closer to the end of the season for a coaching hire but not long enough to potentially sacrifice a good recruiting class this year and wait weeks before signing day to hire somone(i.e. JDR). I'm sure once USC nabs their guy he will be a hot name and recruits will be drawn to come to USC based off the "it" factor of being on the comeback anyways.

Then again, idk, maybe we go sign Ty Willingham. I honestly don't have much trust in Pat Haden's decisions as AD thus far. Although Andy Enfield to the basketball program seemed to be a good hire.